Michael J. Rosen

Michael J. Rosen is President of ML Innovations, Inc., a fundraising and marketing consulting firm serving nonprofit organizations and the companies that assist them. An AFP Certified Master Trainer and winner of the prestigious AFP/Skystone Prize for Research, Michael is the author of the bestselling book "Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing."

Blog Search

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Posts tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

While the phrase has been used in a political context, it certainly applies to the philanthropic world as well.

Luntz was speaking about the nearly 70 (at the time) members of Congress who have decided to boycott the Presidential Inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017. He suggested that by failing to show up, these members of Congress are breaking with tradition, exacerbating an already divisive atmosphere, and failing to represent the portion of their constituencies who voted for Trump.

Luntz is not the first to use the line “Grow up and show up.” While I don’t know the origin of the phrase, I do know that liberals have used it as well. For example, a number of liberals used the phrase to encourage people to go to the polls and vote for Hillary Clinton.

I find it interesting that both sides of the political spectrum have embraced “Grow up and show up.” Ah, common ground! So, what does this mean for fundraising professionals?:

1. Sometimes, we need to work with people (e.g., staff, board members, prospects, donors, etc.) we don’t particularly like or agree with. To me, grow up means we need to have the maturity and professionalism to separate our personal selves from our professional selves. We need to do what is best for our organizations and the entire nonprofit sector.

2. We need to take action. To me, show up means it’s not enough to feel one way or the other; it’s not enough to pay lip-service to an issue or cause; it’s not enough to sign a petition; it’s not enough to participate in a protest. We need to back up our words with substantive action.

Let me share a personal example with you:

Years ago, the CARE Act was under consideration by Congress. The Act bundled a variety of charitable giving incentives including the IRA Charitable Rollover. At the time, I served as a Board Member, and eventually Chair of the Board, of the Association of Fundraising Professionals Political Action Committee.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) with Michael J. Rosen at CARE Act rally.

The lead sponsor of the CARE Act was Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), He didn’t just lend his name to the Act or pay lip-service to it. He passionately believed in helping the nonprofit sector and, therefore, he actively worked for passage of the bill and partnered with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) as lead sponsors.

At the time, Santorum was not popular among a large group of AFP members. As a conservative, he was anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. I was contacted by a number of angry AFP members who did not want the AFP PAC to contribute Santorum’s re-election campaign and who did not want me working with him for passage of the CARE Act.

Despite the objections of some AFP members, the AFP PAC contributed to the Santorum campaign. The AFP PAC also contributed to Lieberman’s campaign although some AFP members objected to that as well. The AFP PAC exists to promote philanthropy, period. In the Senate, Santorum was the most supportive of the nonprofit sector. The contribution was appropriate.

I also continued to work closely with Santorum on advocacy efforts to secure passage of the CARE Act. It was the right thing to do for the nonprofit sector.

[Publisher’s Note: This is not a political or partisan post. Instead, this post will explore the affects the recent presidential election is likely to have on fundraising and philanthropy in the short-term and beyond. As always, civil and on-topic comments are encouraged, whether or not you agree with the points covered in the post. However, overtly political or partisan comments will not be published nor will the rants of internet trolls.]

Donald J. Trump appears to have secured enough electoral votes to become the USA’s 45th president. His election will become official when the Electoral College votes on Dec. 19, 2016.

After a bruising, though not unprecedented, election cycle, the nation remains deeply divided and emotionally raw. What does this mean for fundraising and philanthropy?

Impact of Election Donations on Charitable Giving:

At the 2016 Association of Fundraising Professionals International Fundraising Conference, research from Blackbaud was presented that looked at the impact of political giving on charitable donations in the 2012 election cycle.

Fundraisers have long debated whether or not political fundraising affects charitable giving and, for decades, important fundraising decisions in election years have been based largely on the conventional belief of a fixed giving pie. The study’s overall assertion is that political giving during the 2012 election did not, in fact, suppress charitable giving. Donors to political campaigns continued their support of charitable causes.”

According to the study, donors who gave to federal political campaigns in 2012 gave 0.9 percent more to charitable organizations in 2012 compared to 2011. By contrast, donors who did not give to political campaigns reduced their giving to charities in 2012 by 2.1 percent. These data findings held true across all sub-sectors as well as the demographic segments of age range, household income, and head of household gender.

The research only provides us with a snapshot. It is not predictive. More research will need to be done to identify whether or not the results will be consistent over multiple election cycles. However, based on the analysis of the 2012 campaign cycle, we certainly have room to be cautiously optimistic about 2016.

At times, elections have had an effect on the giving of some individuals. For example, in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected, some major donors feared that he would secure a 28 percent cap on tax deductions.

Out of fear that the cost of giving would, in effect, be going up in 2009, some of these individuals front-loaded their 2009 philanthropic support to 2008 year-end. Nevertheless, the impact on overall giving was modest.

While Trump has promised major tax reform, it’s doubtful that donors will expect significant changes to the tax code to be enacted and go into effect in 2017. Therefore, it’s equally doubtful that major donors will shift 2017 giving into 2016.

Given that the 2016 election was unusual in many ways, it is certainly possible that year-end giving will deviate from the historical norm. For example, the stock market reached a record level following the election. If stock values continue to grow, we could see an increase in year-end gifts of appreciated securities. However, regarding overall philanthropy, I think the smart bet is on history.

Giving to Individual Charities:

It is very likely that certain individual charities will see an uptick in donations as a result of the election outcome.

Many years ago, Richard Viguerie, a pioneer of conservative direct response fundraising and Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, said that people would rather fight against something than for something. We’ve seen it before; we’re seeing it now.

For example, when Obama was elected, the National Rifle Association received significantly more contributions as some feared that the new president would impose more stringent gun control measures.

Whether you’re a nonprofit manager, fundraising professional, and/or donor, you should also be concerned about which of the candidates will be best for the charity sector. Government policies, particularly tax policies, can have a significant impact on charitable giving.

If new government policies lead to greater economic growth, nonprofit organizations will likely benefit. Giving USA has shown that charitable giving consistently correlates to roughly two percent of Gross Domestic Product. So, if the nation experiences more robust economic growth, we can expect more robust philanthropic growth. The converse is also true.

If new government policies lead to greater personal income, nonprofit organizations will likely benefit as Giving USA has revealed that giving also consistently correlates to approximately two percent of personal income.

So, which Presidential candidate is best? Well, that’s a simple question with a complex answer. Evaluating the potential impact of each plan will never generate a consensus among economists. Furthermore, it’s doubtful that any of the plans will be adopted as presented. Congress will still have its say. And Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has introduced his own tax proposal.

While I will not tell you which candidate will be best for the country and the nonprofit sector — I don’t happen to own a crystal ball — I will provide you with a few key, relevant highlights of each plan. I hope you’ll then take the time to learn a bit more about each candidate and his/her proposals so that you can make an informed choice this November and be prepared when change arrives.

I also encourage you to visit the seemingly non-partisan website I Side With to take a quiz that will match your answers with the positions the candidates have taken on a variety of issues. At the conclusion of the quiz, you’ll be told how your positions align with those of each of the candidates. The results might surprise you. If you’re one of my international readers, I still encourage you to take the quiz to see how our presidential candidates align with your values so you’ll know who to root for.

Now, let’s take a brief look at some of the highlights from the various tax proposals:

Fundraising news is dynamic. It’s constantly changing. So, I thought I’d look back on some of my more popular posts of the past several months and provide you with important updates to some of those stories.

About a year ago, I outlined my personal battle with a very rare form of cancer: Appendicial Carcinoma with Pseudomyxoma Peritonei. While my recovery following last year’s 14-hour surgery has been good, I hit a bump in the road last week when a post-surgery complication sent me to the hospital for the week. That’s why I haven’t posted and haven’t engaged much on social media.

The good news is that my problem resolved naturally. Now, I’m working on regaining strength and the more than seven pounds I lost. As I return to “normal,” I’ll resume regular blogging and engagement.

Spelman College terminated the William and Camille Olivia Hanks Cosby Endowed Professorship and returned the establishing donation to the Clara Elizabeth Jackson Carter Foundation, established by Camille Cosby. The move comes as the negative news surrounding Bill Cosby continues to mount.

Now, Central State University in Ohio has changed the name of the Camille O. & William H. Cosby Communications Center to the CSU Communications Center. The Cosbys had given the University a donation of $2 million to name the Center. It is unclear whether or not the University has returned the contribution. The University has failed to respond to my request for more information.

As the US presidential campaign season heats up, some candidates have released their tax proposals. Hillary Clinton’s plan could cost the nonprofit sector billions of dollars in voluntary contributions each year. In an unscientific reader poll, 91.67 percent of respondents said they opposed Clinton’s proposal to reduce the charitable giving deduction.

When attempting to evaluate which tax proposals will be best for the nonprofit sector, we need to consider a number of factors:

Does the proposal preserve the tax deduction for charitable giving?

Will the proposal increase personal income?

Will the proposal help grow the economy?

The calculus is certainly complex. However, we do know that charitable giving incentives work, that people give more when their personal income is greater, and that charitable giving correlates closely to the growth (or decline) of Gross Domestic Product.